1 Defe ndan t has m ade a m ot ion to withdraw h

is origi nal addi tional constitutional

chal le nge t o t he ment al healt h co ur t char ge, and w e no w gr ant t hat mot ion. THIRD DIVISION NOVEMBER 7, 2007

1-06-1484 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 05 CR 5361 ) STAN LEY GILDA

RT, ) Ho no r ab le ) Vi ctor i a S tew ar t, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JUSTIC E CUN

NINGH AM del i vered th e opi

ni on of the c ourt. Defend ant St an ley G ilda r t ap pe als fro m his be nch -t ria l felo ny co nvict io n fo r p o ss es sio n o f a contro ll ed substanc e (crack cocain

e), for which

he was sentence d to 24 months ’ probation. He was also assess ed vari

ous fi nes, f ees and c osts which

the trial court to taled as

$1,235, inc ludi

ng a $10
men tal he al th c ourt cha

rge pur su an t to se cti on 5-1 101 (d- 5) of

the Cod e of Crim in al Procedure (55 ILCS 5/5-1101(d-5) (West 2006)) and a $5 yout h diver sion/ pee r c ou rt char ge p ur sua nt t o s ect ions 5-1101(e) and ( e) (2 ) o f the Cod e of Cri m i na l Procedu re (55 I LCS 5/5-11 01(e), ( e)(2) (W est 200 6)). On appeal defen dant chal le nges onl y the la tt er charge. 1 He al so contends that hi s tot al fees and f in es werem i sc al cul ate d. W

e order c orre cti

on of th i s a moun t, b ut oth er wi se af f i rm th e c i rc ui t cou rt. BACK GROUND On Febr uar y 3, 2 005 , d efenda nt was dr iving h i s a utom obi l e on Low e A ve nu e i n C hi cago,1-06-1484

2

when an un ma rked police veh

ic le pull ed hi m ove r for fai lure to make a

compl ete sto p at a st op sign. Whe n d efe nd an t ad mit t ed t ha t he did not have a v al id dri ver’s l ic ense, pol

i ce of f i cers took h

i m i n to cu st o dy. Th e of

f i cers pe rf orm ed a cus todial

se arc h a nd f oun d one b ag

of c rack c ocai

ne on defen dant’s person an

d one bag i

n hi s automobile
. AN AL YSIS Defend ant chal

le ngesthe const itutionali

ty of the youth diversi

on/peer co urt charges. He also
as se rtsthat t he trial

co ur t incor re ct ly calculat ed t he t ot al fine, fees and c os t s, o ver st at ing t hem by $20. Defendant’s fi

rst contention is

that t he y

out h di versi on/peer courtcharge assessed against him shoul d be vacated b eca

use i t viola tes h i s due proces s ri ghts . Def endan t argues that b eca use there is no r at ional r elat ionship be t wee n a co nvictio n for po sses sion o f a co nt ro lled subs t ance and t he pu blic in t er es t s t ha t ind uc ed t he leg isla t ur e t o cr ea t e t his c ha r ge , it is u nc o nst it ut io na l. Wh ether a statut e i s constitutional

is a question of

la w, and theref

ore, t he propersta

nd ard of reviewis de novo
. Peop l e v . Ma l ch ow , 193 Ill . 2d 413, 418, 739 N.E .2d 433, 437 (2000). Stat utes are presum

ed constitutional

and a court must construe a statut e i n a m ann er that up h ol dsi

ts v al i di ty and con sti tutiona l i ty i f i t ca n r ea son ab l y do s o. Ma

l ch ow , 193 Ill . 2dat 418 , 7 39 N .E .2 d at 437 . T he fun da men t al r ule o f st at ut o r y int er pr et at io n is to deter m i n e th e i n ten t of th e l eg i sl atu rean d to give ef f ec t to th at i

n ten t. People v . Jones , 223 Ill . 2d 569, 580, 861 N.E .2d 967, 974 ( 20 06 )
. T he pla in
mea ni ng of the statute i s the

be st ev i den ce of the l egi slature’ s i

nten t, and there f ore other s tatutory con stru cti on aids a re un ne ces sary wh ere the l

anguag e i s cl

ear a nd u na m bi guous. Jones , 22 3 I ll. 2d at 581, 861 N.E .2d at 974-75. Wh erea statut e under

consideration does not aff ect a fun dam ental co nst it ut io na l rig ht , as in1-06-1484

3

t his cas e, the

appropri ate m ethod of constituti

onal scru tin y i s the rati onal -ba si s test. Peo ple v. Li ndne r , 127 Ill . 2d 174, 179, 535 N. E.2 d 8 29 , 83 1 ( 19 89 ). U n der the r ati

on al -b as i s te st, a statu

te is constitutional

if it has a reasonabl

e relat ionship t o t he pu blic inter est being pr ot ect ed, and t he
ma nne r o f ach

i evi ng th at goal i s al so reas onab l e. Li

ndne r , 127 Ill . 2d at 180, 535 N. E.2d at 831
. Under thi s test, a

court m ust (1) i den tif y the publ i c i ntere st at i ssue, (2 ) d ete

rm i n e i f th e statu te
r ea so na bly

re l ate s to th at i

n terest, an d (3 ) determ

i ne the rea son ab l en es s of the me thod used to foster that i ntere st. Li

ndne r , 12 7 I ll. 2d a

t 180 , 53 5 N .E.2 d a

t 832 . If the re i s a con ce i va bl e b as i s f or finding th e statu te rati on al l y re l ate d to a

l eg i ti mate sta te i n terest, the statute m

ust b e uph

eld. Jones , 223 Ill . 2d at 595-96, 861 N.E.2d at 983. In dec idingwhether to a

ppl y the rati ona l -b as i s te st to a

statut e i mposi ng a m onetary ch

arge, a cour t must asc ertai

n w hether the legi slature i

nten ded the ch

arge to b e a f

i ne or a f ee. Jones , 223 I ll. 2d at 597-98, 861 N. E.2d at 984. A f i ne i s a p artof the punish

men t for a co nvi

ction, whereas a fee or c ost se ek s to rei

m bur se th e State f or exp endi

tures i ncurred i n the prose cuti on. Jones , 22 3 I ll. 2d at 581-82, 861 N.E.2d a

t 975. A s t at ut e w hic h imp o se s a fe e mu st su r viv e r at io na l- ba sis sc rut iny. Jones , 223 Ill . 2d at 596, 861 N. E.2d at 983. But the legisl ature has muc h b roa der a uth ori ty to det er mine the n ature a nd e xten t of cri m i na l f i ne s. Jones , 223 Ill . 2d at 60 2, 861 N.E.2d at 987. Ac co r di ng ly, our supreme court has hel d that a $5 fi

ne does not violate a

defen dant’s duepro cess ri gh ts no ma tt er what t he le gis la

ture earmarks the f

unds f or, but a sim

il ar fee m ust have a rational
r ela t io nsh ip bet wee n t he o ffense cha rg ed a nd the u se of

the f unds generated b

y the f ee. Jones , 223 I ll. 2d at 595-602, 861 N. E.2d at 983- 87. Thus, the $5 y out h di versi on/peer cour t char ge in t he insta nt cas e i s con sti

tution al i f the l egi slature in

tended it to be a fi

ne, but i t may not be constitutional1-06-1484

4

if it was i ntended to be a f

ee. The st at ut e es t ablishing the youth di ve rs i on/ pe er c ourt cha

rge i s s ec ti on 5- 110 1( e) (2 ) o f the Code o f Cri

mi nal Pro cedure, w hich provides: ”(e) In each

county i n wh ic h a t een c ourt , peer court , peer ju r y, youth

cou rt, or ot her y out h di versi on program

has b een created,
a county m

ay adopt a mandatory f

ee of up to $5 to be ass essed as provided in this su bsec t ion. Asses sment s co llecte d by t he clerk of t he ci r cu it cou

rt pu rs ua nt to th i s s ub se cti on m us t be depos i ted i nto a n acc ou nt spe cifically

for t he o per at ion and admini st r at io n of a teen
cou rt, pe er c ourt, p eer j ury

, y outh cou rt, or oth er y outh di ve rs i on pro gram. *** The fees are to be paid as f ollows: * * * (2) a fee of up to $5 paid by

the d efen

da nt on a judg ment of

gui l ty or gran t of su perv i sion un der Se cti on 5-9 -1 of the Unif ied Co de o f Corrections for a f el ony ***.” 55 ILCS 5/5-11 01(e), ( e)(2) (W est 200 6). Sin ce t his sect ion o f the st at ut e is labeled “Ad dit ional fees t o finance co ur t syst em,” use s t he word “f ee” ex cl us i v el y th rou gh out, and d oe s no t co nt ain the wo rd s “fine” o r “p enalt y,” t he plain meaning of t he se ct ion wo uld ap pea r t o be t hat t hese char ges wer e inte nded t o be fees rather than fi nes. But
our sup re me co ur t ’s ho lding in Jones r eq uir es a mo r e in
- de pt h a na lysis o f t he fin e /fee i ssue. Acco rd ingt o t he Jones co ur t , t he mo st impo r t an t an d c en t r al c ha r ac t er ist ic tha t se pa rate s a f eef rom1-06-1484

5

fine is whether the ch

arge seeks to compensa

te the State f

or an y cos ts i nc urred asthe res ul t of prosec uti ng th e def endan t. Jones , 223 Ill . 2d at 600, 861 N.E .2d at 986. “A charge is a fee if and
o nly if it is i ntended to reimb

urse t he St ate for so me cost incurred in defendant’s prosecution.” Jones , 223 Ill . 2d at 600, 861 N. E.2d at 986 . Alt hou gh t he st at ut or y languag e involved in Jones was more am bi guous than the l

anguage i n the i nstant statute, Jones es t ab lishe s t ha t t he st at ut o ry labe ls appl ie d to acharge do no t co ntro l wh ere the pur pose of that charge contr adicts that label . Thus, we must d et er mine wheth er the y outh di vers i on/peer c ourt charge se rves to compen sate the St at e fo r pros ecution

of de f en da nt or constitutes

part of def endan t’s pu nish men t. Jones , 223 Ill . 2d at 581, 861 N.E.2d a t 975. The Sta te a rgue s th at th e y outh div ersi on/peer

cou rt c h arge ca n n ot b e deemed

to co m pen sa te t he Stat e for any costs in

curred as a re su

l t of pr ose cu ti n g d ef en da n t, and theref

ore, thes e ch

arges are fi nes n ot withs tandin g the la nguage of the

statut e. We agree. The ch arge a

t is sue i s m andatory f or any def endan t conv i cted of , inter al ia , a f el on y . It i s al l oca ted to a y outh div ersi on program, even

where the def

endan t is n ot a y out h. Clearly

then t he chargei s n

ot intend ed t o r eimburse t he St at e fo r a ny of t he co st s o f his pro sec ut ion, and it must be deem ed t o be a fi ne. Because t his is a fin e, t he r at io na l ba sis t es t is ina pp lica ble ; ins t ea d t he fine will be uphel d, under a due process ana l y sis, u nless t he amo unt is wildly dispr op or t ionat e t o t he unde rlying

off en se. Jones , 223 Ill . 2d at 602, 861 N. E.2d at 988. There i s certain ly not such di sprop orti

on al i ty her e whe re t he fine is $5 a nd ac co rd ingly we affirm the i m pos i ti on of t hat fine. We
n ote t ha t t his s ame r es ult wit h r es pe ct t o t he sa me fine wa s r ec en t ly re ac he d b y t his co ur t in Pe o ple v. Price , ___ Il

l . Ap p. 3d __ _, 873 N .E.2d 453 (2007 ).1-06-1484

6

T he defen

dant’s second c ontention on appeal is that t he trial

court mi scalcul ated the t ota l
amou nt of

costs, fees an

d expenses ass essed agai

nst hi m b y $20. The

Stat e concedes that

the tot al
was overstated by thi s am oun t , a nd t he refore, we ord er that the to tal amount assessed against defen dant be reduced b

y $20 to refl

ect the corr ect to tal of $1,215. For t he fo re go ing re aso ns, w e o rd er t hat t he to tal am ount o f f in es, fee s and costs be am

ended to ref l ec t the correc t total

of $1, 215 , but oth erw

i se af f i rm the de ci si on of t he ci rcu i t cou rt of Cook Co un t y. Af fi rmed as modi fi ed. QUINN , P.J., an

d THEIS, J ., conc

ur.